Case Summaries

Class Actions

[03/06] In re Natural Gas Anti-trust Cases I, II, III, & IV
Objecting nonrepresentative class members who engage in the conduct specified in the vexatious litigant statutes are not exempt from being designated as vexatious litigants.

[03/03] County of Santa Clara v. Atl. Richfield Co.
Judgment for defendants, lead manufacturers, in a class action brought by governmental entities alleging claims for damages caused by lead paint is reversed where the superior court's rulings were erroneous as to plaintiffs' public nuisance, strict liability, negligence, and fraud causes of action.

[03/03] Powers v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
The preclusive effect of 18 U.S.C. section 1964(c) applies to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims alleging securities fraud asserted individually, as well as to claims presented in a class action.

[03/01] Collins v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co.
Order dismissing a class action complaint against an insurance provider for overpayments involving stacked uninsured motorist coverage is affirmed where the plaintiff did not state a cause of action against the defendant by failing to allege that the defendant violated any of its duties under the relevant statute.

[02/24] Wolfert v. Transamerica Home First, Inc.
Dismissal of a complaint as barred by res judicata arising from a state court judgment approving a class action settlement is affirmed in a case involving a reverse mortgage where decedent was adequately represented in the class action, and her challenges to the settlement notice lacked merit.

[02/17] Seminole County v.Tivoli Orlando Assocs. Ltd.
A non-final order granting a motion for class certification in a case challenging a county's calculation of building permit fees and water and wastewater impact fees that builders must pay prior to being issued building permits is reversed where plaintiff did not prove the elements required for class certification, and the trial court's order lacked evidentiary support.

[02/15] Wyeth, Inc. v. Gottlieb
Granting class action certification in Prempro litigation under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 is inappropriate where plaintiffs failed to show that proving the Petito elements would involve questions of fact common to the class as a whole.

[02/15] Rivera-Feliciano v. Acevedo-Vila
Where no res is involved and both the federal and Puerto Rico forums are equally convenient, Puerto Rico courts are the appropriate forum for ongoing litigation of this prisoners' rights case where 1) the Puerto Rico courts first obtained jurisdiction; 2) in light of the many underlying unresolved issues of Puerto Rican law it would be better to avoid piecemeal litigation and to have the Puerto Rico courts decide those controlling issues of Puerto Rico law first; and 2) there is no reason to think the courts of Puerto Rico cannot protect the plaintiffs' rights.

[02/15] Rivera-Feliciano v. Acevedo-Vila
Where no res is involved and both the federal and Puerto Rico forums are equally convenient, Puerto Rico courts are the appropriate forum for ongoing litigation of this prisoners' rights case where 1) the Puerto Rico courts first obtained jurisdiction; 2) in light of the many underlying unresolved issues of Puerto Rican law it would be better to avoid piecemeal litigation and to have the Puerto Rico courts decide those controlling issues of Puerto Rico law first; and 2) there is no reason to think the courts of Puerto Rico cannot protect the plaintiffs' rights.

[02/15] Thorn v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co.
Denial of certification in a class action alleging an insurer's discrimination against plaintiff African-American policyholders by charging them higher premiums than whites for similar insurance policies is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiffs failed to show that a statute of limitations defense could be resolved on a class-wide basis, and 2) the district court correctly held certification was improper under Rule 23(b)(2) because Appellants' requested relief was not predominantly injunctive or declaratory in nature.

[02/14] Financial Acquisition Partners LP v. Blackwell
Dismissal of a complaint in a putative class action for securities fraud pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) is affirmed over challenges regarding: 1) a finding on collateral estoppel; 2) the striking of certain opinions from an expert's affidavit; 3) the PSLRA's pleading requirements; and 4) denial of leave to amend the complaint.

[02/08] Barnett v. Ameren Corp.
Denial of class certification and grant of summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed on a claim for lifetime health-care benefits under ERISA by employees where no legally sufficient agreement between the parties existed to support plaintiffs' claim.

[02/07] Deiter v. Microsoft Corp.
Order certifying a class of consumers seeking damages against a software manufacturer in antitrust litigation and excluding from the class certain "Enterprise" customers of the software at issue is affirmed where the representative parties' claims were not typical of the claims of the enterprise customers.

[02/01] Overton v. Walt Disney Co.
Summary judgment for defendant-employer in a class action seeking compensation for employees' travel time on shuttles from parking lots to an employee entrance is affirmed since the employees were not required to drive to work and take the shuttles.

[01/31] WIT Capital Group, Inc. v. Benning
Order certifying plaintiffs-customers' class action asserting breach of contract actions against defendant, a provider of online brokerage services, is reversed where plaintiffs could not satisfy the "injury-in-fact" or "fact of harm" requirement under state law, and thus, they could not satisfy the predominance of common issues of law or fact requirement for certification.

[01/30] Phillips v. Ford Motor Co.
Petitions for leave to appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 from orders remanding two consumer class action suits to Illinois state courts are denied where the addition of named plaintiffs did not commence new suits in state court.

[01/27] Mills v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
Petition for a writ of mandate in a class action against an employer for back wages and penalties is denied where the trial court properly sustained defendant's demurrer since, for purposes of an employer's liability, Labor Code section 226.7 describes a penalty to the employer and not wages due to an employee.

[01/27] Knudsen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
A novel claim tacked on to an existing case commences new litigation for purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act.

[01/26] Jones v. Citigroup, Inc.
Order denying defendant's petition to compel arbitration of an unfair competition action filed by plaintiffs is reversed where plaintiffs did not show procedural unconscionability regarding provisions of credit card agreements barring plaintiffs' class and private attorney general actions.

[01/26] Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1309, AFL-CIO v. Laidlaw Transit Servs., Inc.
A party seeking to appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) must comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, and an application to appeal under CAFA must be filed not more than 7 court days after a district court order granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to state court.

Back to Main